The real question is "Will the CG enforce this policy uniformly?"

That remains to be seen. They never have.

Wray...

quote:

Originally posted by Wray:

quote:

OK - I'd bet you won't agree with or like my answer, but here it is:

Becuase the GB CMC job is a much higher level job.

Phil, I find it had to believe you actually put that in print.. You BELIEVE a "gold badge' job is at a higher level than an OIC.

What have you been drinking?

Wray...

You know I don't put it in print if I don't believe it! To me it is pretty simple. OinC is a Mark 1, Mod 0 assignment for any BM above E-7, and a 'good' assignment for some E-7 and below. EVERY single E-7 on the E-8 advancement list for BM is fully qualified, right?

Just so you know, the 'practice' of EPM as of late has been to do very few, if any, PCSs of folks even close to 29 years. They just extend them at their unit (often 'past' 30 to put them in normal transfer season), so they can retire doing a 'full' career. Back to that wishul thinking of me being King again, I woouldn't allow folks to have that option. If you don't have eneough time left for job "X" and you won't apply for job "y" which you do have enough time left for, well then enjoy your retirement.

quote:

Now, back to the E-5. Again, I would reluctantly consider allowing them to REACH their retirement point if they truely were a 7.0+ sailor in all other respects. That said, I see it as a very reasonable trade off to say to them "step up to the plate if you want a retirement check." I believe that a person owes the CG a lot more than what an E-5 delivers to get that retirement check increased anywhere beyond the bare minimum. Actualy, as I alluded to, I am not even sure if after 15 years or more of service, base pay, housing, yada yada yada, they don't already owe us more.

Mighty,
I don't think reaching E-6 or above is somehow repaying a debt owed to the CG. First I think advancing is a personal decision based on more then what we "owe" the CG. I would rather keep a hard working E-5 to 20yrs then a below average E-6 whose only drive is money; dedication to the job is more important then dedication to the all mighty dollar. Whats more important in the work place, someone concentrating on their job and tasks at hand or someone focused only on their advancement? We get lucky if we have folks doing both; and yes I advocate personnal and professional growth but don't feel the only measure for that is advancement. "An honest days pay for an honest days work"

OK, So here is a thought that would encompass everyones desires so far.

How about some type of continuation board for all E-5 over 15, and everyone over 20? The 'board' would be heavily wieghted with the RFMC's input (to take care of the concern about things being different from one rating to another.) That way if there is some E-5 in between 15 and 20 that really deserves to be able to reach 20, and that MCPO at 21 who has been R.O.A.D. for a couple of years already can be dealt with appropriately?

(I still see VERY VERY few reasons to continue ANY E-5 past 20. That is not 'kicking them out,' it is offering them a retirement, while giving them plenty of notice that if they want to continue past 20, they must reach certain goals.)

Phil, let me remind you of what you said:

quote:

Becuase the GB CMC job is a much higher level job. It is where we need our best & most experienced folks.

In my "opinion" any OIC billet has a much greater degree of responsibility than any 'badge' job. Those in a 'badge' job manage paper.. If a 'badge' job goes vacant for 6 months or a year, the paperwork will be done by someone else. You will see this when you go to the CPO Academy.

OIC's are responsible for people, stations, boats, cutters, op schedules, supplies etc.... the list goes on.

Now, if you are considering the gold badge job a higher level simply because you are closer to the "flags" or Captains you may be right... but... so what.

Wray..

Done right - which I can grant is a big "if" - the GB job has significantly more broad impact.

Having been associated with advancements for over 30 years, some observations on the recent discussions:

> No single rule/policy will apply equitably to all rates/ratings, due to the vast differences in advancement opportunity (% of vacancies) between rates and ratings. There are compelling arguments on both sides (one-size-fits-all-ratings advancement/retention policies vs tailored policies for a rating's circumstances) but the CG has deliberately chosen the former, primarily for the appearance of consistency, which is vitally important to credibility with the work force, as is visibility. And it's just that nexus between visibility and consistency where the dilemma lies. If the CG adopted different advancement policies/rules for rates/ratings with different advancement opportunities, thus ensuring consistency in their effect, it would then spend most of the CMCs' time explaining to the BM why he didn't get the same credit for the same factor as his buddy the AST, or vice versa. Visibility of the process. Consistency of the effects. Take your pick. The CG chose visibility, for good or ill, and given the complexity and variability of all the elements that determine opportunity, they probably had no real choice.

> During my career, by far the hardest rate to make was ASMC, now ASTC, I gather. We published numerous eligibility lists where the initial cutoff was zero across the board in ASM. Aviation in general was far harder to make rate in than any other occupational category, even during the worst recruiting years when every other rating was wide open. And when things got tight all over, BM and EN/MK were large enough ratings that no matter how tight things got, there were always SOME advancements.

> 'Open' and 'closed' rate/ratings come and go. My favorite E-10 lateraled from RM to another rating just to advance when RM was locked up. By the time he ascended, his prior rating was relatively tight and RM/TC (now goodness knows what) was wide open. Except for aviation, which in my experience is permanently tight, advancement opportunity waxes and wanes as a rating's circumstance changes. (Another argument for one-size-fits-all: tailored rules wouldn't keep pace with the changes in circumstance.)

and

quote:

Not sure if there was any other question in there, but there are more Capt's than MCPOs. ~396 Capts and ~313 MCPOs.

I always thought the far more significant statistic was percentage. It's been a while, so please check my facts and figures:

Percent of officers at O6 by law*: 6%

Percent of enlisted at E9 by law*: 1%

*DOPMA; 1958 legislation creating E8 and E9

So it's six times harder (or six times more exclusive a club; or however you want to phrase it) to put on the second star than to pin on the chicken.

v/r - jb

Master Chiefs-
Respectfully you're comparing apples and oranges. While an OIC has the awesome responsibility of Command and controlling a Capitol Asset, her crew and schedule to execute a mission, A badge has a significantly broader sphere of influence which ultimately effects a greater audience. I don't see either one being more or less important and both require high caliber personnel who screen successfully to be of any value. Just my 2 cents from the cheap seats.
Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
Done right - which I can grant is a big "if" - the GB job has significantly more broad impact.

Please cite some examples of this.. I would love to see them.

Why don't you post this over at chiefs.com and see what their reaction is.

Wray...

Philip,
I do agree to a point.. they are somewhat different as you put it, but, to say a "GB CMC job is a much higher level job. It is where we need our best & most experienced folks." is pure BS in my book.

I'd still like to see some of these valuable things accomplished by a 'badge' that could or would not have been accomplished if there had not been one in place.

It was done for many years in the past.

Wray...

quote:

Originally posted by Wray:
I'd still like to see some of these valuable things accomplished by a 'badge' that could or would not have been accomplished if there had not been one in place.

Pretty sure the catalyst for the ME rate was started and pushed through at the Gold Badge level. I further recall a certain Gold Badge who drove IDP's down the throats of the fleet and was met with much grumbling until the nay-sayers saw the value of the process. Just 2 examples that quickly come to mind.

The IDP is still useful only on occasion. Sometimes it's used for the negative vice positive.

quote:

Originally posted by JekelKat13:
The IDP is still useful only on occasion. Sometimes it's used for the negative vice positive.

Care to elaborate on how the IDP is used negatively? Just curious as I dont believe that's the intent of the process.
Cheers!

quote:

I always thought the far more significant statistic was percentage. It's been a while, so please check my facts and figures:

Percent of officers at O6 by law*: 6%

Percent of enlisted at E9 by law*: 1%

*DOPMA; 1958 legislation creating E8 and E9

So it's six times harder (or six times more exclusive a club; or however you want to phrase it) to put on the second star than to pin on the chicken.

v/r - jb

Actually, it is likely even worse than that. (note - recent change was 1.25% for E-9).

You got to start from the begining. Somewhere less than 1 out of every 1000 Cape May Grads make MCPO. The 1.25% is of the current force. As discussed above, many folks do a full career as an E-6. I have no clue of the real numbers, and ain't gonna bother looking it up, but something tells me that a LOT MORE than 6 out of every 1000 CGA/OCS grads make it to O-6.

This discussion may seem off topic, but it really is not. The O Corp already does continuation boards and has a somewhat up or out policy. I wouldn't want our to mirror theirs, but a comparison would be informative.

Wray;
Obvioulsy we are really talking about only one rating here, BMs. (ETs really need not chime in I don't think)

I am not discounting the role of an OinC. It is a tough job and an important one. I am saying though that it is by defnition a job that every single BMC and above, who is recomended for advacnement, is fully capable of doing. Very, very few people in any other rate would be capable of doing it. Like akwaman said, it is apples and oranges.

Probably just one of those few things we won't be able to convince the other to agree on.

quote:

Originally posted by akwaman:

quote:

Originally posted by JekelKat13:
The IDP is still useful only on occasion. Sometimes it's used for the negative vice positive.

Care to elaborate on how the IDP is used negatively? Just curious as I dont believe that's the intent of the process.
Cheers!

Of course it's not the intent of the process.

Depending on the 'supervisor' sometimes the IDP is used so that 'supervisor' doesn't really have to 'supervise' in the true definition of the word.

quote:

Originally posted by JekelKat13:
Of course it's not the intent of the process.

Depending on the 'supervisor' sometimes the IDP is used so that 'supervisor' doesn't really have to 'supervise' in the true definition of the word.

I believe there are providions in place to weed out "gundeck" compliance by supervisors. If what you are commenting on is indeed happening it should be brought to the attention of your CMC

Considering my AD service ended in Aug of this year after over 10 years with a multitude of reasons behind my choice, I can't say (now) whether or not it's happening. I can say FOR SURE that I've seen it happen in the past. And just for clarification when I state "past" please know that this can range from 8 months ago to 4 years ago.

Let me add to this as well. When I was (a couple of years back) directly rssposible for a number of Petty Officers, I could have written their IDP FOR THEM because I kept myself imvolved with them and the "going-ons" of their CG and civilian life. Hopefully I did that without seeming intrusive, but I felt it was necessary to know what made "my guys/gals" tick.

Lets be honest, I believe the CG is using the weight standards policy as a RIF..because it sure isn't about living a healthier lifestyle.

The CG is happy to keep smokers boozers and non-performers gainfully employed given they are within weight standards.

Living an unhealthy lifestyle regardless of the method is still an unhealthy lifestyle.

quote:

Actually, it is likely even worse than that. (note - recent change was 1.25% for E-9).

Begging pardon for going off topic again, but I didn't mention an anomaly regarding advancement opportunity. When you look at the percent of candidates advanced, MCPO is one of the "easiest" rates to make. My data-less but voluminous anecdotal analysis was that a great many E8s across many ratings declined to participate because they didn't want the orders that would come with the second star. The fewer the billets, the easier it was to determine what jobs/locations were going to be up for that cycle.

Back to topic, again, with apologies.

v/r - jb